History is laden with examples of reformers, whose missions originally intend to shed all the religious (or any other differences) and promote unity & harmony. However, the countdown begins when the supporters of the erstwhile reformer classify themselves as a unique cult and start claiming to be a superior race; also to resort to coax more and more people into their herds. To Look at the doctrine of atheism in the aforesaid context: atheists out rightly denounce all the beliefs & reject theists’ opinions. Often, some even resort to villainize theists in historical contexts. Just in an analogy to the right wing extremists who denounce non believers.

Agnosticism is an acceptance that things beyond human perception exist; but they need not necessarily be attributed to some supreme being or some supernatural power. It is only that in the status quo we are yet to have a theory of everything. Delving into thoughts of the theist doctrines may not do good, an open mind certainly does no bad! Blind beliefs often originate from reasonable practices, distorted over time; a retrospective might even help to avoid reinventing the wheel!

Galileo, Darwin were once abused for their maverick ideas that challenged the mainstream ideology. Today, the prime agenda of atheists is theist bashing. Setting aside, the kind (or means) of abuse, I feel, if atheistic doctrine, when taken too seriously, might set the history to repeat, of course, the role of a theist is now to be subjected to harassment! Often, those hardships of theists in communist nations keep surfacing.

If imposing belief is a form of extremism, imposing disbelief too is extremism! Hence I feel, agnosticism, where one doesn’t find it so important to decry others’ belief or disbelief is a more relevant doctrine. It is a choice where history isn’t interpreted in a contemporary sense to abuse the erstwhile practices and more importantly to realize the importance in looking forward over backward in the consequence of the progress of the mankind.

To conclude "agnosticism is more meaningful"

PS: A small example of atheist abuse to exemplify Atheist extremism in imposing disbelief: “Isn't an agnostic just an atheist without balls?”R13;Stephen Colbert

I only need one round to beat you. Your beliefs on Atheism are a stereostype many of my personal friends are ateist and are very respectful of theists. You have no proof to your arguement what so ever. Just because Agnostics say there may or may not be a God does not make them better than Atheists more likely they want to be correct if God is my ver proven to exist or nt to exist.

Agnosticism has no actual belief besides the fact that there are things beyond human comprehension but they are not necessarily a deity. That is the whole point of Agnosticism and besides this has no core beliefs or stances on issues in the global world. Atheism is based on a common belief that God does not exist and has taken stances on issues such as abortion and gay marriage, since they apply their beliefs and have a more organized view on things unlike Agnosticism which has one belief and does not apply it to any current happenings. Because of this fact Agnosticism is no better than Atheism.

You are kind of coming close to the core of the issue. In your own words: "Atheism is based on a common belief..." but Theism is also based on some kinds of "beliefs". Atheism is no more, but to criticize some "some beliefs" based on "some other beliefs". Taking stances is only bigoted. Theists, long long ago, took a stance against all the issues you've mentioned and still stick to it, which is where the problem originates. Atheists' beliefs, as of today are contemporary, but, no signs of flexibility is seen in their attitudes. Flexibility is showing to show no actual beliefs and evolve the beliefs with time. As your argument said, "Agnosticism has no actual belief...", and hence that ideology is what offers the most flexible mindset. From your last sentence "Agnosticism is no better than Atheism", I sense that you are a theist, is it so?

Because Agnosticism has that one basic belief and never mentions anything related to its beliefs on anything else, not all Atheists are like you described however, Agnosticism is flexible yes, because they engineered their beliefs so that they cannot be wrong on anything so they can prove that they are the superior religion and therefore race or group on the planet, Atheists simply place their trust in Science and evidence unlike Theists and stories and claims.

Agnosticism is neither a religion nor a race. Atheists simply put their trust in science? Here is an example: the downgrading of Pluto as a mere member of the Kuiper belt faced opposition and a new term dwarf planet was invented. Those who couldn’t embrace a simple change of planet downgrading are those to be trusted – for you to put your trust on science. It is those scientists who drive the science! Agnostics, in such contexts, can look beyond inventing new terms. An Atheist trusting science is just analogous to a theist trusting in God. Only, the sources that are trusted, change!

Atheism and Agnosticism are so similar as neither truly believes in God. Because Atheists believe that science and speaking out is more important than claiming that some commands written 10,000 years ago instead, meaning there is no difference or significant difference between the two.
Your example also made absolutely no sense.